This article was originally posted in the Mit Mail newsletter. Click here to read the original.
14 August 2014 | Greetings! This edition of MitMail focuses on the ongoing debate to define how and when offsetting should be used.
This month, the International Union of Conservation for Nature released a draft offsets policy for public comment. The final policy will provide guidance to government and business around the world on offset implementation. The stakes are high: one group has already warned against the policy allowing offsets to meet pre-existing conservation targets. That would effectively lead to net loss of biodiversity disguised as positive action.
Meanwhile in the United States, the National Mitigation Banking Association released its own Universal Principles of Compensatory Mitigation, aiming to set a high bar for offsets implementation. But two legislative efforts in North Carolina and Alaska would seem to roll back mitigation’s stringency: in terms of what kinds of impacts trigger stream mitigation requirements in North Carolina, and by creating a temporary mitigation mechanism in Alaska – a concept which supporters say better reflects ecological reality, but has been controversial elsewhere.
In other news, policy-makers put some muscle behind biodiversity conservation efforts this month, with TEEB-India’s launch, Pakistan taking steps to ratify the Nagoya Protocol, and Uganda backing a Biodiversity Finance Initiative to build a business case for protection.
Don’t forget to take a look at our Jobs and Events listings in the newsletter below – great things are happening this month.
—The Ecosystem Marketplace Team
If you have comments or would like to submit news stories, write to us at email@example.com.